aps said:The rumors have been that it was an intelligence professional who leaked the warrantless wiretapping. Does anyone have any suspicions?
Justice Dept. to probe leak of spy program
aps said:The rumors have been that it was an intelligence professional who leaked the warrantless wiretapping. Does anyone have any suspicions?
Justice Dept. to probe leak of spy program
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10651154/
Stinger said:Leaky Leahy? Pelosi? Reid?
Someone who puts their political agenda above the security of the country.
oldreliable67 said:TimmyBoy: "The problem is that the Justice Department is opening an investigation on the wrong people. "
In this context, the DoJ opens an investigation when requested to do so by an agency that does not have investigative powers. In the same way that the CIA requested the DoJ investigate the leak of classified info with regard to the Plame affair, the NSA has now requested an investigation into the disclosing of a classified operation. Neither the CIA nor the NSA have investigative or more importantly, supoena powers, hence the requests to the DoJ.
oldreliable67 said:Lefty: "How is knowing that our government is knowingly and actively breaking the law a bad thing?"
This is an unfounded assertion - it is merely an opinion. Yes, it is an opinion shared by others, but nonetheless, as of this moment and given what is known, it is still merely an unfounded assertion.
Lefty: "There is no excuse for anyone breaking the law, and those responsible should be held accountable."
Absolutely. In order to do so - hold those responsible accountable - there must first be a determination as to wrongdoing and whose is responsible. The DoJ investigation may produce evidence to do so, but until then, there is still a presumption of innocence.
Lefty said:Actually, it's not an unfounded assertion, the president admitted that he had ordered the wiretapping. You may still assert that it is not clear if he broke the law, but it seems very clear that he did. The 4th Amendment protects us against the very thing our president ordered. And the FISA law in which the president and his lawyers keep citing in their defense, in no way gives the president the power to wiretap whomever he wants without any court oversight. And if the president didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why did he continually lie about the court oversight in previous years? He only admitted that such a program existed because of this leak. The question isn't whether or not the president ordered the wiretappings, since it is clear that he did, but whether or not he had the power to do so. In no way does the president of the United States have the power to ignore the constitution and the law. Believe me, I am the first one to say "innocent until proven guilty," but when the accused admits to the offense brought against him, isn't it still unreasonable to assert his innocence?
If someone is breaking the law and you feel the need to whistleblow, you go to the Dept. of Justice to make your case...Lefty said:I'm still not sure how leaking this is hurting national security. How is knowing that our government is knowingly and actively breaking the law a bad thing? I am glad someone leaked this information because I respect democracy and our Constitution, and so should the executive branch of government. The Justice Department is investigating the wrong thing here. The law has been broken, and the Constitution is slowly being pushed away. There is no excuse for anyone breaking the law, and those responsible should be held accountable.
cnredd said:If someone is breaking the law and you feel the need to whistleblow, you go to the Dept. of Justice to make your case...
Not the New York Times to secretly leak it...:roll:
cnredd said:If someone is breaking the law and you feel the need to whistleblow, you go to the Dept. of Justice to make your case...
Not the New York Times to secretly leak it...:roll:
A co-conspirator now?...:roflaps said:Well, when the Dept. of Justice is a co-conspirator and condones the warrantless wiretapping, that pretty much takes away that option.
Right and wrong...Lefty said:The press serves it's purpose in our nation, it's not just to keep us informed about the little goings-on in our world, but to inform us of abuses of power by our government. We the People are [theoretically] in control of the government. We the People should be well informed of any illegal activities that are perpetrated by the people that we elect to represent us. The person that leaked this information did this nation a great service at personal risk to his or her life. I'm not saying that Bush is going to kill the person that leaked the information, but the way this president conducts character assassinations... this person is putting themselves, and their families (see Plame investigation) at risk.
And besides, can you honestly tell me that the Justice Department wouldn't prosecute the person that came to them and told them about the illegal wiretappings? The Justice Department would point out the program's "classified" status and throw that guy/gal right into prison. You honestly think that the Attorney General, whom argued that the President had the power to authorize such wiretappings, would work with the person that leaked this information? :roll:
oldreliable67 said:Yeah, I think I can honestly do that.
(1) There are quite stringent laws that protect whistleblowers. The preferred 'path' for whistleblowers is first to the legal authorities (i.e., DoJ in this case). Then secondly, if no redress is available from the legal authorities and the whistleblower still feels strongly about his/her 'cause', then to the media and take your chances with regard to the classified nature of the info that you might be disclosing.
(2) The DoJ has the necessary staff with the necessary clearances for listening to classified information. The media does not. Hence no need to throw anyone into prison for coming to the DoJ with classified info. A large need - perhaps, depending on the situation - for throwing someone into prison for going to the media with classified info.
Agreed...also...oldreliable67 said:Lefty: "can you honestly tell me that the Justice Department wouldn't prosecute the person that came to them and told them about the illegal wiretappings? The Justice Department would point out the program's "classified" status and throw that guy/gal right into prison."
Yeah, I think I can honestly do that.
(1) There are quite stringent laws that protect whistleblowers. The preferred 'path' for whistleblowers is first to the legal authorities (i.e., DoJ in this case). Then secondly, if no redress is available from the legal authorities and the whistleblower still feels strongly about his/her 'cause', then to the media and take your chances with regard to the classified nature of the info that you might be disclosing.
(2) The DoJ has the necessary staff with the necessary clearances for listening to classified information. The media does not. Hence no need to throw anyone into prison for coming to the DoJ with classified info. A large need - perhaps, depending on the situation - for throwing someone into prison for going to the media with classified info.
So your saying that the New York Times had no problem receiving classified information and making it public, but they DID have a problem finding out from the leaker what other recourse s/he may have taken first...Lefty said:Perhaps someone did go to the Justice Department. We don't know. None of us have access to that information, and the claim that this person went to the NYT first can't be supported. Perhaps this person did seek to remedy the situtation within the confines of the Justice Department... we don't know, and I doubt any of us can prove such claims.
cnredd said:Right and wrong...
In this instance, the only way they can inform us of abuses of government is to TELL them since it was classified information...
Now let's say you the "leaker"...You are under the impression that you have nowhere to turn except the press, which is laughable...
First, if you know of this, you aren't in the mailroom...YOU are part of the program...unless, of course, you got it from someone IN the program, which means the leak goes higher...
Which means that you could've gone to ANY Senator or ANY Representative...
The person who leaked classified information could've easily gone to Schumer, Pelosi, Leahy, Spector or anyone else...
But instead they went to the press...
Here are the two events...
Bush is doing something that many BELIEVE to be breaking the law, but that is still undertermined...There is debate on the laws...
Going to the press with classified information IS breaking the law...There is NO debate...
Your excuse of "I had nowhere else to turn to, so I went to the New York Times" is disgusting...Especially a newspaper that convienently waited until the Patriot Act Extension was being discussed...That's not reporting a story...That's becoming the story...
cnredd said:So your saying that the New York Times had no problem receiving classified information and making it public, but they DID have a problem finding out from the leaker what other recourse s/he may have taken first...
Wonderful...
cnredd said:A co-conspirator now?...:rofl
According to that logic, you're saying that Bush received the OK from the DoJ...which means he shouldn't be taking the blame for any wrongdoing...
Bush: Can I do this?
DoJ: Yes you can.
Bush: Cool...
Where's the Senate investigattion on them?...:roll:
Lefty said:Perhaps someone did go to the Justice Department. We don't know. None of us have access to that information, and the claim that this person went to the NYT first can't be supported. Perhaps this person did seek to remedy the situtation within the confines of the Justice Department... we don't know, and I doubt any of us can prove such claims.
Farcical...Lefty said:Wait... so there is no debate about leaking classified information, but there is a debate on whether or not the president ignored the 4th Amendment and the judicial process of the FISA law of 1978. That's ridiculous. If this program was classified with the intent of covering up it's illegal nature, which does seem to be the case, then the classified nature of the program is moot point. There is no debate over our rights that are protected by the constitution. The constitution isn't a document where our rights are nullified during time of war or crisis, it's existance serves to protect our rights at all times.
And I say the classified nature of the program seems to be with the intent of covering up it's legality issue because... well... is it really a secret that the government has the power to wiretap your phone? We're not tipping terrorists off by leaking this information, we're merely being informed about illegal activities in the highest levels of government. C'mon really, it's no secret the government can wiretap your phone, but we need to be informed when the government does not obey specific rules and regulations that are put in place to protect and preserve our freedoms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?